review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
No movie with Madeleine Carroll in its cast could possibly be unwatchable. That said, I have to add that this British film comes close. The story takes place on board the `SS Atlantic' and it's loosely based on the `Titanic's' unfinished voyage. The word `unsinkable' is spoken, the liner strikes an iceberg, and we hear a heavenly choir sing `Nearer My God to Thee.' The doomed passengers eventually take over the anthem, in a clever bit of sound work. But the year of the film's release (1929) means that a modern viewer has to accept otherwise primitive sound and many of the acting conventions of silent films and the stage. These aren't problems. The film's major flaw is pacing, and pacing had been well developed in silents. However, if the dialog were delivered at a realistic speed, the movie's running time would be cut in half. The intended effect was drama (and clarity in a new medium), but the result unhappily is tiresome now. The film's structure is preposterously illogical and inept. Paradoxically, I found certain details of the editing quite modern in technique: fine, abrupt cuts from one area of the ship to another, sometimes even on sound effects. Although we're on board the `Atlantic' from the first shot, we were well over 4 minutes into the movie before I discovered that fact. There are long, intrusive musical passages by the ship's dance orchestra. (Entertaining, easy sound.) Personal stories are presented in an utterly uninvolving and unconvincing way. Don't even think of spectacle. The berg is a tiny thing and the exterior damage it does to the ship's hull is a minor dent. However, the scenes of passengers swarming into the lifeboats - clearly staged on a real liner, presumably tied up to a dock - generate great excitement. Other than the glorious Miss Carroll, these sequences are the film's only points of excellence. As the movie and the ship near their end, the screen goes totally black several times when the power generators begin to fail. Their last, eternal blackout is the end of the film, with a sunset/sunrise tacked on, a clumsy symbolic effect. `Atlantic' is a cinema curiosity. At best.<br /><br /> | negative |
I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.<br /><br />And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.<br /><br />Avoid this film like the plague. | negative |
Robert Culp (they call his character "doctor"...I think he's a vet or something) and family move to an affluent, low-tax, zero-law-enforcement suburb. Lantern-jawed Culp and his dog are nearly killed when some local idiot neighbor kids get drunk and "go cruising" through his front yard at 60mph. He presses charges, which arouses the kids' ire, and suddenly him and his family are the victims of a violent and disturbing prank campaign.<br /><br />Marilyn Manson, er, Marlyn Mason rather, plays his fretful, boiled-celery wife, who urges him not to use violence against his sneering nemeses, and who really just wants to move somewhere with decent public services. But The System is getting Culp nowhere, and he's not about to leave his house because of some punk kids and their crazy rock and roll music. And we all know what movie people do when The System fails...(but this is based on a true story, which makes it even better).<br /><br />It should be noted that while the villainous hooligans do have convenient '70s funk-o-matic "teenage" theme music that warns us when they're up to no good, this film actually ends up treating the age brackets even-handedly (really!). It doesn't make a big generational thing out of it. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Anyway, if you like dogs (or at least believe in protecting their civil rights, like me), and you like justice, and you like fire, and you like justice for dogs by way of fire, and you think people who skitter nervously out of troubled communities are "too damn soft," then this flick's ethos is up your alley. No, it's not really "good," at least not in any widely recognized sense of the word. There's nothing subtle or understated or clever about it, it's just sort of a feature-length PSA for vigilantism. It does, however, capture the feeling of some memorable scenes in other, beloved works. Remember in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns when Batman leads the Mutants on horseback to reclaim Gotham City? Remember that scene in A Christmas Story where the kid pounds the bully's face in? Remember how cool that was? Or do you just really hate being looked at funny by your neighbors? Yeah, mon.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this was a 1973 made-for-TV movie that I just happened to catch at 4am on my local WB affiliate, and it's probably not destined for DVD release. But after being inspired by this film, do you think I'm gonna just sit here and take it!?! | positive |
A large part of the scenes should be cut off. There is a lot of scenes that should have been cut off. For example the scene where the hunters mentions "I got spiders on my dick", "I like dick", playing in the mud scene, or a bar scene where a professional dinocroc hunters main job is a snake charmer.<br /><br />How about other terribly incoherent scenes featuring a woman, Diane who wants to loose her virginity to a boyfriend who walks like he wears women's panties three sizes too small. While they make love, didn't they realized they are making it out next to the little boy who will soon run away and loose his head? Why did they do in a living room? I mean his head really flipped. How about the beach scene very reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's Jaws scene at Grant Lake. All these strange scene could easily be re-dubbed and billed as a comedy.<br /><br />Here in my local town, the cineplex theaters had been advertising for months about Dinocroc, and I am glad I didn't watch it because I later found out it was shown only for 1 or 2 days before it was canceled. The movie was THAT bad. I suspected that Dinocroc was not a good movie looking at the preview. It features the leg of Dinocroc that looks like a child wearing green pajamas and slippers with claws and walks up and down like a 2 year old. It could easily passed over as Baby Geniuses.<br /><br />If any students of movie making wants to learn what not to do this is a real classic trash. Such as Diane's boyfriend who walks like he had an advanced case of syphilis makes you wonder what the poor woman sees in this guy who looks drunk even before he get to drink beer. When this happens, who cares about Dinocroc? The panties man looked more more interesting than the entire movie of Dinocroc. His acting was so bad, he makes a much better replacement for Mr. Bean. MOVE OVER ROWAN ATKINSON, here is a man with a better comedic talent in a horror sci-fi flick. Perhaps the worse casting in the history of Hollywood. | negative |
The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.<br /><br />The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.<br /><br />Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.<br /><br />There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.<br /><br />A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.<br /><br />Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.<br /><br />No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life. | negative |
Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. <br /><br />India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. <br /><br />a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.<br /><br />A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). <br /><br />I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly. | negative |
this moving was intriguing and absorbing; however, the story was a little choppy and hard to follow at times. Although the two principal actors did a great job, just seeing Senn Penn acting with every fiber of his being and stealing every frame made this a very memorable movie. Later movies have revealed him to be a not just one-role actor: he also showed comedic flair in Sweet and Lowdown. Surprisingly talented and not the light-weight I used to think he was./ | positive |
The morbid Catholic writer Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) that is homosexual, alcoholic and has frequent visions of death is invited to give a lecture in the literature club of Vlissingen. While in the railway station in Amsterdam, he feels a non-corresponded attraction to a handsome man that embarks in another train. Gerard is introduced to the treasurer of the club and beautician Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk), who is a wealthy widow that owns the beauty shop Sphinx, and they have one night stand. On the next morning, Gerard sees the picture of Christine's boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and he recognizes him as the man he saw in the train station. He suggests her to bring Herman to her house to spend a couple of days together, but with the secret intention of seducing the man. Christine travels to Köln to bring her boyfriend and Gerard stays alone in her house. He drinks whiskey and snoops her safe, finding three film reels with names of men; he decides to watch the footages and discover that Christine had married the three guys and all of them died in tragic accidents. Later Gerard believes Christine is a witch and question whether Herman or him will be her doomed fourth husband. <br /><br />The ambiguous "The Vierde Man" is another magnificent feature of Paul Verhoeven in his Dutch phase. The story is supported by an excellent screenplay that uses Catholic symbols to build the tension associated to smart dialogs; magnificent performance of Jeroen Krabbé in the role of a disturbed alcoholic writer; and stunning cinematography. The inconclusive resolution is open to interpretation like in many European movies that explore the common sense and intelligence of the viewers. There are mediocre directors that use front nudity of men to promote their films; however, Paul Verhoeven uses the nudity of Gerard Reve as part of the plot and never aggressive or seeking out sensationalism. Last but not the least; the androgynous beauty of the sexy Renée Soutendijk perfectly fits to her role of a woman that attracts a gay writer. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O 4o Homem" ("The 4th Man") | positive |
The film exposes the blatant exploitation of the Chinese worker - generally female - garnering footage from the Chinese business owner who shares his unashamed and delusional viewpoint, his American counterpart also as unashamed and delusional, the oppressed workers who are given a voice and, of course, the drunken Americans who wear the beaded necklaces mindlessly celebrating in New Orleans. <br /><br />The glimmer of hope comes when some Americans are actually outraged that people making their beaded necklaces were getting paid like $0.10 per hour to do so. You also have a feeling that the workers may have a chance to escape working in the bead factory, but will probably do so when they get fed up with the punishment treatment popular with the factory owner and/or they just get too exhausted to work up to 20 hours a day of hard labor.<br /><br />I have wondered where those necklaces came from, not realizing how completely grueling and arduous it would be to make them. I just truly appreciated this film as it beautifully portrays the impact American indulgence has over something we consider relatively innocuous in our society on peoples on the other side of the world. Honorable mention goes to Wal-Mart. It is simply amazing. And clearly, just the tip of the iceberg! | positive |
If you and your friends find as much humor and enjoyment from horrible acting, jokes, props, and overall film making as me and my friends, you need to rent this.<br /><br />From simply reading the tag line and seeing how not funny it is, you should assume more not funny, poor quality, great, hilarious content through out. Its a tale of some of kids who defy every law of physics and reality and fly back in time through a modern day big screen TV to a world of dinosaurs who eventually become their friends. Not to mention a hilariously serious scene where T-Rex becomes a father figure for one of the kids. Yeah...<br /><br />It should be in the comedy section but you'll find it with kid movies if you find it at all. So call your friends over, sit back, relax, get ready to laugh, and enjoy. You will be quoting the laughably horrific one liners in this movie for weeks. "Whats with all the ruckus?!" | negative |
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...<br /><br />But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...<br /><br />I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.<br /><br />Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...<br /><br />"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!" | negative |
I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br /> | negative |
This low-budget indie film redefines the word "blah". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: "nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: "PC crap", "pretentious on a pathetic level", and "pointless".<br /><br />The film tries so hard to be "hip" and "in touch" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and "thinking" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out "poetry", which is nothing more than one of her dull "dear diary" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her "poetry" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. "And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina..." Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.<br /><br />The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his "Miss America" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.<br /><br />The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes. | negative |
This movie makes "Glitter" look like "Schindler's List." Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer/director/producer/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, "Hell Ride" allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on "Hell Ride" are STINK, STANK, STUNK. | negative |
The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...<br /><br />PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!<br /><br />If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? "Thorndyke?" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free
| negative |
In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest. | negative |
From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? <br /><br />To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.<br /><br />And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.<br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | negative |
This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy.<br /><br />"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.<br /><br />Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.<br /><br />Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.<br /><br />3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again. | negative |
A much undervalued film that tells the story of a young musician caught in an ever-declining spiral of domestic violence.<br /><br />At times difficult to watch, while Morris Day is portrayed as the misogynist, Prince as the knight on (motorcycle) steed, he is still called upon to twice beat a woman as part of the screenplay. That he can do this and still emerge as a flawed but vindicated hero is credit to the writing. Prince is so free of ego in this film that not only does he portray himself as a narcissistic megalomaniac who beats women, but his most famous song is fictionalised as being written by his father and Wendy & Lisa. Even further, two of his compositions - Computer Blue (admittedly the album's weakest track) and Darling Nikki - are shown as being songs that kill off an audience. Perhaps the only concession to the Princely ego is a card that lists the (slightly shorter than Prince) Apollonia as 5'6.<br /><br />The nearly complete-amateur cast are mainly band members playing themselves (and reviewers who slate the actors on the terms that they've never appeared in other movies are completely missing the point), and do perfectly well under the direction. Morris Day gets most of the plaudits for his likable ham, though Jerome Benton must also get credit for bouncing off him well, particularly their stage act, which is hilarious. Day and Benton even go so far as to make an Abbott and Costello routine funny, which takes some doing.<br /><br />Lastly, there's Prince. While I admit to bias, I do actually think he's a pretty good actor in terms of being able to portray a low-key version of himself. Acting ISN'T his profession, this was a film made for entertainment, so anyone pointing out that the guy in the lead role isn't Robert DeNiro and thinking they're making a point is sadly deluded. I don't want this review to be a derisory attack of other people's comments, but I've even this film slated as having a low budget and being darkly lit. How would a film about domestic violence be shot, then? With full overhead spotlights and a CGI dinosaur walking into frame? <br /><br />The film acts almost as a perfect snapshot of the neon light and skinny tie era
until you remember that it was actually made in a world of curly perms and tinny synths, and this isn't some retro-recreation. Prince's best film with Oscar-winning music, it sees him at his zenith, and it's saddening to realise that, even though he would make some fine albums, he would never again capture this high. | positive |
Absolutely putrid slasher film has not one redeeming quality. It has Camp Councellor Angela(Pamela Anderson..awful as the killer;her quips when she wastes people aren't even amusing)on the warpath slaying teenagers who act the least bit naughty or resist her pleadings for good behavior. We run the gamut of boring, clichéd killings such as the slashing to the throat to one kid looking for his Freddy clawed glove, a kid who gets a chainsaw, one girl who gets drilled, one who gets shoved into the crapper(filled with leeches), one who is roasted, etc.<br /><br />It doesn't have one original idea to offer and is merely a waste of time. That is unless you want to see Valerie Hartmen's(who plays the slut Ally)tits. Most of the violence occurs off-screen so even that will not satisfy. | negative |
This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.<br /><br />It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.<br /><br />I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this. | positive |
'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.<br /><br />However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.<br /><br />Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.<br /><br />This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep. | negative |
Eisenstein describes his collaboration with Prokeviev as an equal partnership, where they worked together to match image and music, scene by scene. Unfortunately, the sound recording was a disaster, so for once the devotion to authenticity in Criterion DVD's backfires. Fortunately, there is at least one restored version of the film on VHS (BMG Classics) with an excellent re-recording of the music (by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus).<br /><br />It is interesting to compare this film with contemporary propaganda films in England, Germany, and the United States. Eisenstein's film was made in 1938, in response to the fear of a German invasion; and Olivier's in 1943, when a German invasion of England was still expected. Both films are stagey, but in different ways. Olivier begins by showing a staged performance of the play in the Globe Theater by Shakespeare's own company, then takes us out of the theater to a more cinematic (though still stylized) setting. Eisenstein's film is cinematic from the beginning, but the dialog and speeches are still influenced by the melodramatic acting conventions of the old Russian theater. This works very well for Cerkassov's speeches as Alexander, because part of his job as a prince and military leader was to play a role in public.<br /><br />In Nazi Germany, the first major propaganda film was Leni Riefenstahl's tedious Triumph of the Will, which recorded a huge political spectacle - massed crowds cheering Hitler's ranting speeches. The propaganda in her masterpiece, the film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is much subtler, with its worship of the athletic male body carrying disturbing undertones of the Aryan superiority myth. But wartime German propaganda films could also be subtle. Karl Ritter's Urlaub auf Ehrenwort (Furlough on Word of Honor) is typical. It shows a young lieutenant letting the men in his company go on a 24-hour leave before returning to the WWI trenches (and almost certain death). Against the advice of veterans, he accepts their word of honor to return, though he will be courtmartialed and shot if they don't. Naturally, they all return, (though some of them berate themselves for it), presumably inspiring the audiences to similar displays of duty to their country.<br /><br />In the United States, one of the better WWII propaganda films was Howard Hawks' Air Force. In it, we follow the mismatched crew of a bomber as they bond to each other with the experience of battle, and overcome obstacles to continue their part in the war. Typically for Hawks' films, however, their real loyalty is more to each other than to their country.<br /><br />Eisenstein has to reach far back in history to find any Russian military triumphs. Ironically, Alexander (like the other Russian princes) is descended from the Vikings who sailed up the Russian rivers to conquer and rule their own fiefdoms. So he is a conquerer repelling another would-be conquerer. Physically, they are not that different (though the actors portraying the German princes were obviously chosen for their ugliness and smirking stupidity). But the real contrast is between the common soldiers. The Russian peasants are as tall and strong as the nobles; whereas the German peasants who scuttle out of the shield wall to kill wounded Russians are a foot shorter than their masters. There is some historical truth in this contrast. Russian serfs in the Middle Ages were much better off than their European counterparts, because they could always escape into the wilderness and clear their own land.<br /><br />Eisenstein's film also cleverly gives us our first sight of Alexander as a fisherman. In the battle with the Germans, he uses his fisherman's knowledge of the ice as well as his knowledge of their military tactics to defeat them. When Gavrilo breaks the shield wall, they are forced to regroup and mass on the West side of the lake, where the ice is thinner.<br /><br />One of the other pleasures of Eisenstein's film (which most audiences miss) is the historically accurate way that he portrays the politics of medieval Russia. Cities like Pskov and Novgorod owed their growing wealth and prominence largely to trade, which put the merchants into power, and sidelined the princes until their military expertise and feudal levies were needed to repel invaders. In the film, Alexander is shown not only as a military leader, but also as a master politician, who knows how to wait for his time, and how to make the most of his popularity after the victory. | positive |
Somehow, I really thought that I was going to enjoy this film because I love pictures with mountain climbing and a great mystery in the plot. I must say that the photography was fantastic and there was some scary scenes that captured my attention. I thought that Nicole Eggert,(Diana Pennington),"Thank You, Good Night",'01 played a very convincing role as a young girl who had a tragic loss in her life and meets up with some characters who want her to guide them up the mountain. Marc Singer, "Angel Blade",'02, played a very unconvincing weird guy and over acted in many scenes with a bad temper that looked comical. This film was a big disappointed and not worth watching, unless there is nothing on the TV to ENJOY!! | negative |
Watched this on KQED, with Frank Baxter commenting, as I recall. Have never seen it since, but would like to find out where it is available.<br /><br />It is amazing how good something can be, but be in black and white, and have zero special effects. In fact, amazing how much BETTER something like that is! | positive |
Convoluted, infuriating and implausible, Fay Grim is hard to sit through but Parker Posey is really the only actress who could take this story and run with it. She's at once touching,funny, cunning. The supporting actors commit to it as well.<br /><br />I wont even try to tell you the plot.. It involves characters from Hartley's Henry Fool and attempts a tale of international espionage.<br /><br />The film works well if you continue along with it-understanding it is. in a sense, completely ridiculous. It becomes more and more ridiculous as you plod along. (I resisted the temptation to turn off the DVD twice).<br /><br />Fay Grim requires an adventurous film-goer willing to tackle something that isn't cookie-cutter. In the end, it offers something that defies description. | positive |
When A Stranger Calls is actually a pretty good movie. I had never saw the original and so when I watched this I thought it was unique. When When A Stranger Calls was advertised on the television the trailer gave away the ending. Well, I never saw the trailer so when I saw this film I was surprised at how good it turned out to be. I walked by it one day and decided I'd buy it and now I'm lucky I did, because I thought it was a very pleasing movie that is a nice little film to own. It is getting a lot of unfair treatment, and if you're interested in this movie at all, don't listen to all the negativity. Camille Belle is not as bad of an actress as everyone makes her out to be, and she did a great job in this movie, so all you haters get over yourselves, lighten up, and actually try to enjoy this movie for what it is; A fun, teeny bopper, popcorn flick. If you haven't seen it please do for it is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of the other slashers being made recently... | positive |
Essentially this is a dreadful film with a few features that may or may not redeem it for you, depending on how much you want them to. In "opening up" "The Red Green Show" for the big screen, the filmmakers jettisoned the rustic charm carefully honed over a decade's worth of episodes set in and around Possum Lodge in favor of a blandly-photographed "road movie" with a ghastly faux-Hollywood "big" musical score and profoundly boring storyline that's not embellished with enough good gags to make it as entertaining as even the most mediocre episode of the TV series.<br /><br />Having devised a plotline that keeps most of the members of Possum Lodge offscreen for most of the film and requires virtually everyone concerned to be despicably mean to the loveable Harold (who's the hero of the film, the usually affably crusty Red being relegated in this incarnation to nothing more than the role of head Harold abuser), the only performers who really get to shine are Patrick McKenna and Peter Keleghan as Harold and Ranger Gord, who deliver satisfyingly large-screen versions of their small-screen characters. | negative |
"Seeing Other People" is a daring romantic comedy about a couple named Ed and Alice (Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson) who are engaged and plan to be wed soon. They live together but are both having doubts about their relationship. Alice realizes she's had so few sexual relationships in the past, she might just be marrying Ed because she's never felt anything else. So they agree to begin fooling around with other people for a while to test their own relationship.<br /><br />The movie balances a prescient question - by focusing too much on the "What if?" aspects of life, can it in fact do the opposite and only make you feel more constrained? When Ed begins having sex with a college girl he begins to become addicted and almost forget about Alice - when he realizes this, it scares him.<br /><br />I hadn't heard anything about this film in advance but I enjoyed it. It's not extremely well-made and definitely has that purposefully low-budget indie feel to it - but it's a lot better than most romantic comedies out there in the mainstream today.<br /><br />Check it out if you get a chance. | positive |
I rented this some years ago, the video store had only VHS at the time. Straight to video was hitting it's strides (you know, where the box covers use the same font and color schemes of successful films).I didn't know what to expect other than what was printed. First thing I thought while watching was "what the hells' wrong with the sound?"-Obviously there was no dialogue dubbing. Words echoed, so I stopped munching on whatever I had to pay closer attention-mind you there's no Shakespeare here!,just simple talk. The story is simple enough, boy meets girl etc.. What struck me as humorous and heartfelt was, the people in the movie didn't seem like caricatures written into the story,but rather non-actors plucked temporarily from their real jobs(uniforms included). All the while, you begin to sense what the filmmaker is after,then see that there are no attempts at cheap humor(people hurting their privates,using vulgarities this couldn't have hurt the marketing. There was something honest about it. I thought if they'd have a bigger budget then it would have been better, which i'm sure they considered daily,but, they went ahead and made it. This, I felt, was what independent film-making is all about.The word "Indy", is thrown around as if it's a Genre..Ha!..that's funny! | positive |
First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a "girl"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the "bad guys" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the "African American" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della! | negative |
Welcome to a bad ghost story and someone's nightmare. This horror tale finds a newly married husband(John Hudson)and wife(Peggy Weber)haunted by the memory of his previous wife and screaming skulls found throughout their empty mansion and lily pond. Is the husband really trying to drive his already anxious bride insane? Or is it the learning challenged gardener Mickey(Alex Nicol)who has taken care of the mansion's grounds since the death of the original mistress of the house? This low budget horror flick has a story line that keeps you involved all the way the finale. Special effects are pretty bad even at 1958 standards. I swear at times the screaming skull sounds much like it should be in a Godzilla movie. Also in the cast as Reverend Snow is character actor Russ Conway. By the way...the lurking gardener(Nicol)is the film's director. You can catch this as part of AMC's Monsterfest. | negative |
I don't usually like this sort of movie but was working at home and wanted something to halfway watch while I did. I got so engrossed I gave up working to just sit and finish watching the last half hour uninterrupted. And I sure don't usually shed tears over this sort of show, but I was crying at the end. A lot of emotional nuance. Great acting, and good southern feel. John Corbett is one of the most talented actors out there, and the guy who played Luke was really good too. Highly recommend. | positive |
Well, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I experienced a film that had literally no meat or potatoes in it. The entire film felt like it was just the salad with no main course. The story line was fallible and laughable, the characters were one-dimensional, the realism was out the window, and the animation was done by four-year olds. Does that cover it? I have never been more embarrassed for a concept in my entire life. I have never read the comics or seen the other programs with this character, but from the looks of the other reviews I am not off base with my observation.<br /><br />To begin, the story moved too quickly. For someone new to this character and situations, I needed more built into creating the reasons instead of finding the solution. I have seen other Anime (if you could call this one an Anime) that do great things with their characters because they take the time to develop them. There was nothing set aside for Lady Death. In a few short scenes, we see her train with Cremator and instantly become this aggressive she-beast of Hell. This was hard for me to swallow, considering moments before she was introduced as this weak and feeble woman controlled by her father. Suddenly, she is immersed with hatred and can do battle with an existence that has been around for millions of years. This was absurd. The presentation of Lady Death was poor, to say the least. I felt as if she was nothing more than an animated character instead of a desperate woman with revenge on the mind. For me, it just didn't work. She was nothing more than eye-candy for prepubescent boys wanting to ogle the mass quantities of skin that she suddenly grew on her chest when training with Cremator. Oh, I felt sick just watching her. The same goes for the character of Cremator. Who was this random person? The explanation they gave wasn't enough, and instead I was left with more incoherent babbling than actual development. It is a very sad day in Hell when we forgo characters to show more violence and action, especially in an animated feature.<br /><br />Next, there was Lucifer himself. Let me just say that I think I could do battle with the King of Hell and survive. He was weak, his voice was laughable, and he just didn't represent the image that I had in my mind. It was as if Disney was in control and wanted to make him semi-PC. He lacked the darkness and corrupt nature that Lucifer embodies. He was not the ruler of Hell, but instead just a lackey that had a bigger place to live. Speaking of living or dying, how can you die again in Hell? That was a concept that definitely needed more explanation. Most of the characters were worrying about dying, when they didn't even consider the option that they were already dead. That is how they got to Hell. I think it was this level of thinking that ruined the film for me. I didn't quite capture the notion that your soul was still in a solid body in Hell, but that could just be me
or maybe it was because there was NO DEVELOPMENT in this story. There was nothing built, just preparing.<br /><br />The battle sequences were hysterically bad. The animation in this cartoon felt like it was made in the early 90s. There was nothing impressive about the way that this film was drawn. Why are we, America, so behind on animation? It is huge in Asia, and it is creeping in hardcore here because we keep making films like Lady Death that do not challenge or use any part of imagination. We are cheap, and this film shows it.<br /><br />Overall, this film was bad. The animation coupled with the horrendous voice work was cheap. I had head somewhere that this film as in production for a long time, which is hard to understand because I think I could have made this film on my credit card. The production was horrendous as well as the story. Nothing was developed, leaving huge gaping plot holes that nearly everyone fell into. The strength of the characters was missing, and nothing was explained. I wasted my time with this one and would like to warn others so that when Death does come, you don't find yourself in my state and regretting the fact that you wasted 80 minutes on this piece of garbage.<br /><br />BLAH! <br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | negative |
If I'm to like a movie, I need to care about the lead characters and what happens to them. In this waste-pod of a film, I found myself hoping that they would all die in the end. None of the characters are people that you'd ever want to meet, they all made me sick. If not for a few nude scenes, I would have given this wretched movie a 1. | negative |
"Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to "show biz" numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. "Where Did My Childhood Go?", "Walk Through the World With Me", and "You and I" are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film. | positive |
This movie was suspenseful and fun to view. As I am a fan of these type of movies, I did enjoy this. The premise is kind of scary but the fact that I didn't rate this a 10 was because the movie was a little over the top in some areas.<br /><br />SPOILERS:<br /><br />Cmon:NOBODY could identify this girl? I understand the concept of isolating oneself but I find it hard to believe that SOMEBODY-ANYBODY wouldn't have been able to ID this girl as Angela Bennet. That was over the top and so was the scene where she WALKED over to somebody's desk and started typing. This was overall a really good movie, suspenseful and keeps your interest. Dennis Miller was great as Allen, REALLY believable, Bullock was good as the lonely reserved computer worker the bad guys all underestimated.<br /><br />I think the PREMISE of the movie was really different-and scary. In today's times who knows what could happen? But some of the over the top scenes prevented this movie from being a 10. 8 of 10. | positive |
I saw this film at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival. La Pianiste reinforces the "Austrians=grim" thesis I'm formulating. Isabelle Huppert won a well-deserved Best Actress award at Cannes for her portrayal of a woman who, in her efforts to attain the artistic ideal, loses her humanity. Trapped by her talent, she suppresses her emotions and her sexuality until they can only be expressed in twisted and terrifying ways. When a younger student falls in love with her, our hopes rise, but are soon dashed by the realization that she cannot experience love the way others can. It is too late for her, and the film's final 30 harrowing minutes are, tellingly, devoid of the beautiful music that carried the first 90 minutes. The message seems to be that the music itself is not enough without the life and beauty it's describing. | positive |
DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br /> | negative |
"The Beguiled" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with "Play Misty For Me". An alternate title considered for the film was "Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a "Peyton Place" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.<br /><br />Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.<br /><br />I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.<br /><br />Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.<br /><br />The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.<br /><br />Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.<br /><br />Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film "A Patch of Blue" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.<br /><br />I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles. | positive |
David Beckham is a British soccer star and the husband of Victoria Beckham ("Posh Spice" of the Spice Girls). His trademark is a goal shot that curves across the pitch and into the net. The soccer equivalent of an unhittable curve ball in baseball. "Bend it like Beckham" means making that type of spectacular shot. Apart from that, and a little shrine to him in the main character's bedroom and a faux-cameo at the very end, the movie has nothing to do with him.<br /><br />The movie is full of little soccer in-jokes, such as the present that one of the characters' parents give her of a jersey with the number 9 on it (property of the great Mia Hamm, to those in the know), references to "Posh 'n' Becks," the video homage to the WUSA one of the characters plays for a disbelieving friend ("They *have* that??"), lesbian gags, sports-bra gags, and so on.<br /><br />The story is about a teenage girl in England who idolizes Beckham and wants to be a soccer star. She has a real gift, but the two seemingly insurmountable obstacles she must overcome are the absence of a professional women's league in the UK (hence their fascination with our WUSA), and her parents, who are Indian immigrants set in very old-fashioned ways that do not allow daughters, among other things, to engage in contact sports. The girl's family are portrayed as figures of ironic fun, but with great affection -- think My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The girl loves and respects them enough to go through sitcom hell to conceal her growing soccer stardom from them. | positive |
Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.<br /><br />After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.<br /><br />There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).<br /><br />All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO. | negative |
Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens. | negative |
This movie is a perfect example of a film that divides people into 2 groups.. Those who get the joke and those who don't. People usually attack what they don't understand. This film has a comic style and charm that has been unparalleled since. It's a GREAT comedy.. and a GREAT romance. It's a perfect date movie. A perfect movie for someone who wants a good lighthearted laugh. And if your perspective is too tense, maybe this movie isn't for you, and you may need counseling. It is an injustice that Paramount has kept this film on the shelf since the early 80's, having never seen the light of day on DVD. Yet they feel an Urban version of "The Honeymooners" is a good idea. I find it odd that my two alltime favorite romantic comedies have never been released on DVD. The other being Gene Wilder's "The World's Greatest Lover" which Fox has sat on since the early 80's as well... Yet, "From Justin To Kelly" is in nearly every video store in the country. There is no Justice in the world. Maybe those who took the time to bash this will enjoy "From Justin To Kelly", I'm sure that one is watered enough for them to "get". Sometimes with age people lose their sense of humor... Or sometimes it just goes stale and they find comic satisfaction in reruns of "Full House". | positive |
210 minute version (extremely hardcore, or so I hear) or the R-rated version released into theaters? Both are terribly awful, of course. Peter O'Toole and Malcolm McDowell have both claimed they wish they had never made this film (the latter of the two men reported this in an IMDb interview!), and I can see why. Nothing but a nonsensical mess of softcore porn and a half-hearted attempt at a plot.<br /><br />Not much of anything here, other than cheap tricks and stupid scenes. I liked what McDowell himself said about the film: "It was like one moment I'd be staring, admiring my mule or something, and the next scene would be two lesbians going at it."<br /><br />How true.<br /><br />What an awful movie.<br /><br />1/5 stars. | negative |
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.<br /><br />This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.<br /><br />Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).<br /><br />Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. | negative |
I was wrapped to see many other people also enjoyed this film. First watched it when I was in my early teens and then again several times late at night a few times after. Then sadly, no more. I'm now nearly 49 and so wish it could be made available on DVD. Why not? The best Anthony Quinn role, no one could have been more suited for the part or parts he plays - I've mentioned it to other film buffs of similar age and alas, no one I know recalls it. As the daughter of a generation that went through WWII and its aftermath (and myself deeply fascinated by what that generation endured) I guess this film at the time gave me a wonderful cinematic insight into some of the heartbreaking issues of the day. For classic final scenes this movie is a stand out. | positive |
Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated. <br /><br />The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction. <br /><br />George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...<br /><br />Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever. | negative |
This is one of those movies where the acting, set location, direction, and effects were so bad you need to rent a copy get 5 or 6 buddies, a keg of beer, sit down and watch it. To borrow from the late Douglas Adams, "Watching this movie will be like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon... wrapped around a large gold brick.".<br /><br />What is wrong? Everything. British actors posing as Americans, there have been many that can pull it off like Bob Hoskins but he isn't in this one. It wasn't even necessary to choose North America as a location why not say it took place in England or something? The director seemed to like taking shots of girls tits and asses more than actually coming up with some kind of character motivation. So at this point you drunken buddies will be saying, "ALL RIGHT! Another T&A shot!". There isn't much dialog so feel free to skip off to the kitchen and make those sandwiches. What did I like about this movie? After my friends passed out, I managed to collect $185 off of them and told them they spent it at the strip bar after we finished watching the awful movie. | negative |
I found the film quite good for what I was expecting. Although I weary, because I have a fear of injection needles, I sort of came to expect when they were coming. So if you're not into needles, blood, the human body, and some good medical fun, put this movie back and rent another. As the other user commented, I was also please at the German attempt at a slasher film. I'm an American who just moved to Germany to stay with a family and saw this lying on the shelf. I love psychological thrillers, and I'd say this is somewhere along those lines. A character falls into places and feels misconstrued. While trying to dig her way out and find some truth to a situation, things get a little sticky and other aren't so sure she's on the right track. So throughout the film you're kept on edge about who's anatomy you might catch a glimpse of and who's rounding the next corner. | positive |
Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of "how can I keep up this ruse" scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own "fake" gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it. | positive |
Cusack does his best David Niven in this one, although I don't know if anyone besides me noticed it.<br /><br />When seen with this in mind, its a deliciously over saturated 'wants to be taken more seriously than Austin powers but still be pretty d*mn funny' reworking of an under-appreciated comedy classic.<br /><br />Hillary Duff does an over sexualized Britney spears lap dance version of Mata Bond. The writers built a little reverse Oedipus twist into the plot - interesting choice.<br /><br />I never knew how soothing Montel's voice was until this movie... I think he has found a new calling doing nav system voice overs! | positive |
Where do I begin? I first saw this film in 1995 and had no idea of what to expect, I was actually at the time searching out films that Elijah Wood had starred in and this one had come highly recommended. I sat down and watched the film once and didn't know what to think. I watched it a second time a few days later and the floodgates just opened. Never before in my life had I ever really cried while watching a film, and I was blubbing, every high and low the film I was riding right alongside, on an emotional roller coaster.<br /><br />It struck such an emotional chord in me on many levels, the intense sadness and elation we see in the film, the wonder and innocence of childhood, the yearning for a time that once was, but is no more. More than anything, this film reminded me of my childhood (except for the abuse) during a time in my life when I'd shrugged off my childhood some years before and not even really noticed, I'd given it up and moved on to a life entirely devoid of it. The Radio flyer made me wake up and suddenly realise what I'd given up without really even noticing. From that day forward I immediately set about to change my life and myself, and I did.<br /><br />This is going to sound corny but basically I rediscovered my inner child, I started down a path that has been ongoing over the past 6 years and has changed me so much, so much for the better, embracing and living that part of myself. I've been finding out who I really am. I don't think it was simply a case of the right film coming along at a crucial moment of my life, The Radio Flyer really did something very special, and I still look upon it as an incredible piece of work in all respects, an incredible film.<br /><br />In closing I cannot fail to mention the music. I am a great fan of Hans Zimmer and this is among his very finest works. The sheer breadth and depth of emotional expression he has put into the score of this film is a huge part of what makes the film what it is to me. Like subtitles to a foreign language film, his soaring music is a crib sheet to the intense emotions this film will take you through. Find the soundtrack at all costs, it was sadly deleted long ago, I never expected to find it but amazingly did, after chatting with someone I met on a Hans Zimmer fansite guest book.<br /><br />Watch this film, let yourself live the emotions, don't get bogged in trivial nitpicking of the ending, be that child again | positive |
Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is "dizzy, slap-happy" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). "She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining," Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims "I love you!" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as "Her Cardboard Lover", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.<br /><br />This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: "Her Cardboard Movie". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to "The Women" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.<br /><br />Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in "The Escape" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than "leading lady"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's "When I am Dead, My Dearest" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.<br /><br />**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders | negative |
I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead. | positive |
This film is about a bunch of misfits who are supposed to be assigned to a task that is expected to fail miserably. The misfits pull together to successfully complete their mission.<br /><br />Hilarity ensues.<br /><br />Like the "Police Academy" films, the humor comes from the kooky characters on the boat. I thought it was an engaging film and I will stop to watch it anytime it is on TV. No, it won't cause you to ponder your relative role in the cosmos or inspire you to do great things for the service of mankind, but it is fun enough entertainment for 90-some-odd minutes. Plus, Lauren Holly looks hot in a naval uniform. | positive |
This movie was produced by the biggest producer in Costa Rica. Although their authors brag about it as a the biggest movie in Costa Rica ever made and their actors even dare to say that they didn't get an Oscar Nomination due to it's political relevance with oil (-he he, right) ...Well, this is all a lie. This movie was supposedly based on a book written by Carlos Salazar Herrera about a love triangle (super cliché soap opera-like subject) and it secondary story is about an oil problem on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica with an American oil company who wanted to explore oil deposits on the region, but at the end it never was approved by the government. Now, it may have some nice footage about the beaches, but that's it; nothing bigger than that... it is all in the camera. Most of the actors are lousy, except for two or three. The rest lack of sense of what acting means: they overact most of the time. The story is completely common and cliché, worthy of a cheap Mexican soap opera as I said.. because the crew advertised it as a protest movie about oil, but 80% of the movie is based on a stupid love triangle. The script is nothing impressing, it is very simple and the dialogs are not very thought. It has also got some editing problem on a couple of scene changes... but besides that is pretty decent. The director did an alright job, I mean, he is not like an Oliver Stone,but he did his job with the resources he had handy. I would like to question him why instead of using Costarican actor he spent most of the money on foreign ones.. I mean after all they bragged about being an 100% Costarican Production... that's what you at least expect. Final the end is is not well done, there are flaws and details that don't match or are useless. Besides being the most elaborated movie in all Costarican history, I think it's mediocre. You can make way more interesting and better pictures with less cash. Never heard of "Pi"? Anyway, if you are curious about Costa Rican or Central American movies, this one will do, but you are definitively not missing anything. | negative |
With Adam Sandler.<br /><br />This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.<br /><br />86 mins. rated R for Language. | negative |
Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film.<br /><br />"Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."<br /><br />How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.<br /><br />San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE. | positive |
When THE MAGIC OF LASSIE opened at Radio City Music Hall, I was foolish enough to believe it would be as heart-warming as some of the first Lassie films were. Not.<br /><br />The story was abysmal, the songs by the Sherman brothers were way below their usual level, the characters were uninspired and JAMES STEWART and MICKEY ROONEY had both seen much better days.<br /><br />Then too, I was interested in seeing what ALICE FAYE's contribution would be like, since she'd been absent from the screen for so many years and was always so fetching in her earlier roles at Fox. Alice too, was letdown by the foolish script and the unflattering photography. Another disappointment.<br /><br />Nothing original here, nothing even remotely interesting for an adult to enjoy--and clearly, no magic present for anyone. You can skip this one without missing a thing. | negative |
I like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like "Trash". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.<br /><br />"Trash" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song "Walk on the Wild Side" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5/10. | negative |
I'd heard about this movie, but didn't see it until my daughter, who saw it on a flight to Australia, told me it was a great movie. I was interested in seeing whether Rupert Grint, away from Harry Potter, was showing the promise you see in the Potter movies. I wasn't disappointed. He's become a fine actor, showing a range in Driving Lessons from a shy boy being beaten down by an over-bearing obsessive mother, to a young man finding himself to be worthy of his own, and other's, esteem. Going over lines from plays and poetry with his aging-actress employer, it's obvious that he's ready to take on much more complex roles in films and the stage. But the jewel of this movie was Julie Walters. I'd seen her previously in the Potter movies, Billy Elliott and Calendar Girls, and loved her. In Driving Lessons, as she does lines from poetry and Shakespeare, I was awed by her timing, command of the language, and body language. I'm hoping it was make-up/costuming, as she portrays an older woman with osteoporosis, though no mention of it is made in the movie-- as a nurse, I can say that she did this perfectly, portraying a woman on the brink of old-age, but clinging to the sparkling past that she reveled in. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and I wish I'd seen it in a theatre first-- but I doubt it ever played anywhere here in Albuquerque. We miss out on so many of these types of movies here. | positive |
A man is wrongfully accused of killing his friend in an aircraft plant fire, and must travel cross-country to avoid the police and discover the true sinister nature of the situation at hand. A plot line that was later used to fuel Hitchcock's classic North by Northwest, Saboteur benefits from some very good performances as well as some masterful suspense sequences from the Master himself.<br /><br />For any Hitchcock fan, the plot is a bit too familiar, but he was always able to infuse the story with its own memorable supporting characters and charades. Here, the likable and charming Robert Cummings is the lead and soon finds himself visiting many strange and quirky characters, not withstanding a troupe of circus performers, a rich businessman with hidden motives, and a blind loner who shows him the best way to judge someone.<br /><br />In terms of sheer originality and quality, this does lack in some areas, particularly the motive of the antagonists. However, there is some nice chemistry between Cummings and his lead lady, the much under-appreciated Priscilla Lane as well as a truly moving performance as the blind man by Vaughn Glaser. The best part is the final sequence, which perfectly mirrors what Hitchcock would use later in North by Northwest, only this time the climax is atop a statue in New York. Certainly not his best, but the Master of Suspense gives us some great moments to wait for. | positive |
i believe that this movie was a terrible waste of my time, and i would know after watching it 5 times in class. this movie does not show what absolutely perfectly happened during these times. no one can truly say that these things happened to the letter. if anything the only good part would be the actors, even tho that they were really really crap.they were reading the script without expression. quite boring. i would rather watch play school. so i would definitely like to never ever see this movie again in my whole life. it is a complete waste of time unless you want your time to be wasted and if you would like to see an unrealistic view of what happened back in 1981. | negative |
I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.<br /><br />There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.<br /><br />I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means. | negative |
My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.<br /><br />The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.<br /><br />When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by. | negative |
So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.<br /><br />This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.<br /><br />Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.<br /><br />I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey! | negative |
I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.<br /><br />An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.<br /><br />The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.<br /><br />The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.<br /><br />Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies. | negative |
You may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace. | negative |
Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it. | negative |
I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the "traditional" fashion, but I hated this movie.<br /><br />There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.<br /><br />I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie. | negative |
This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.<br /><br />That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him. | negative |
After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching. | negative |
James Stewart plays Dr. Ben McKenna, who, with his wife and son, are tourists in an Arabian city. They get caught up in the middle of a murder scene. The victim whispers something in Dr. McKenna's ear, and he is told to do something.<br /><br />Later, his son is kidnapped. The kidnappers turn out to be a man and woman he knew, but the woman is a bit softer than the man.<br /><br />The song, "Que, Sera, Sera" (Whatever we'll be, we'll be," is one of the best songs ever sung in any movie.<br /><br />Doris Day play's Stewart's wife, and she sings the song mentioned above. Her performance is Oscar worthy. I'm surprised she wasn't even nominated.<br /><br />My Score: 8/10. | positive |
Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.<br /><br />From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.<br /><br />To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".<br /><br />The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.<br /><br />Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon | positive |
never before has a film driven me to write a review but this was just dire.i stuck with it trying to find what it was about this film that made snoop pick it as his first serious role but frankly it was a poor choice.maybe this made a good book but it certainly did not work for me as a film.i found it unbelievable,lacking atmosphere and i found many of the scenes hideously stilted.a musical maestro he may be but a serious actor snoop ain't.the acting by Dylan mcdermott and rose byrne was passable but not enough to carry a weak plot with feeble dialogue. perhaps i have just entirely missed the point but to me it didn't fit into any genre,it didn't elicit any empathy with the characters nor did it create any suspense,in fact i found myself praying for the end and quelling a deep desire to slap all three of the main characters! | negative |
Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.<br /><br />The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.<br /><br />With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies. | negative |
I haven't seen all of Jess Franco's movies, I have seen 5, I think, and there are more than 180 of them. So maybe it's a bit early to say so but "Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden" (better known as 'Succubus', but that is the cut version) is according to me if not the best, certainly on of Franco's best. Franco is best known (although 'known' might be slightly exaggerated) for "Vampiros Lesbos", a weird cultish movie that got more acclaim in the mid 90's when people found out Jess Franco was also an interesting composer. Through the soundtrack a happy few discovered the man and found out what was to be expected after seeing the video clip of 'The lion and the cucumber' ('Vampyros Lesbos OST'): Jess Franco is an overwhelming director. When the phone rang during 'Vampiros', I let it ring. I just wanted to see more of the movie. Since that moment Franco never could grip me that much. But then I stumbled on this movie. It is even better than "Vampiros Lesbos", I think. Franco is looking for what he can do with a story and a camera. We find out he can do a lot. I certainly didn't expect to find "Necronomicon" that great: its beginning didn't impress me at all. Remember, I had seen "Vampiros Lesbos" before (although chronologically that came only three years later) and both movies kinda start the same. But then the story went on, puzzling and gripping, beautiful camera work and the stuff you would like to see Godard do if he weren't so occupied with spreading his political messages. Later on in the movie I heard a dialogue about which art was or wasn't old-fashioned. The man says that all movies have to be old-fashioned because it takes weeks before the audience sees what got filmed. But the girl replies that "Bunuel, Fritz Lang and Godard yesterday made movies for tomorrow". Janine Reynaud is an interesting lead actress and of course Howard Vernon, a Franco regular, is also there. Luckily the acting is good (something that can spoil a lot of Franco movies for you, but not this one). But certainly watch out for the dummy scene. The erotic tension, the wild directing and the fact that it's a yesterday's movie for tomorrow make it a movie a lot of people should see. The fact that it is a bit more accessible than "Vampiros Lesbos" certainly helps. | positive |
I watched this movie with some friends a couple months ago, I still laugh today thinking about some of the utter stupidity. The first few scenes alone were hilarious. I won't spoil anything for those who wish to see it, I wouldn't want to ruin the laughs. Needless to say the entire time I watched this movie I was trying to figure out exactly what the point of anything the characters in this movie were doing. Towards the end we all got bored however, as the initial hilarity and shock of a movie being this random wore off. There is no plot and not a trace of decent acting. The characters are about as well developed as those in a kindergarten "Learn to Read" book. They even managed to make a lesbian sex scene uninteresting. | negative |
I first saw this movie in Papua New Guinea in 1967 and have remembered it since, although I have never seen it since that first time.<br /><br />Just how easily good people's lives can be destroyed by the pure evil that existed then and still does is a memory that will haunt me forever.<br /><br />The movie is funny and immensely sad at the same time and the role played by Anthony quinn is superb.<br /><br />This movie should be in all college studies about man's inhumanity to man. | positive |
Sometimes I think that somewhere in the "Lifetime" Channel's office complex there is a room where the writer's hang-out, with a large wheel on the wall - sort of like the Big Six ones in casinos. The latter have a lot of spots where you win even money, and fewer for higher amounts, until there are perhaps a couple which pay bigger bucks.<br /><br />But I picture the channel's wheel having about six different genres on its wheel, with two of them, appearing the most, labeled "The Psychotic Neighbor," or "The Spouse with a Hidden Past or Secret or Both." "Lifetime" movies have a few repetitive story lines, and these two seem to be the most ubiquitous.<br /><br />The "Spouse..." category can have a spouse of long-standing, but some person appears, or an event occurs, exposing that the good wife was once a hooker, one of the couple was involved in some nefarious act long ago, or that something else in one of the background in different than presumed -- etc., etc., or, as in this flick, one of them has entered the marriage with the most nefarious of aims.<br /><br />One constant, in all of their genres is that the husband or other males are usually clueless, vacuous, and slow to have any idea what in the hell is going until the climax, or at best, very late in the proceedings (unless the male is the miscreant). Not the case here.<br /><br />Whether the referenced miscreant might be the "neighbor," or as in this offering, "the wife," it is always fascinating how easily, successfully and effortlessly they proceed with their dastardly deeds. They manipulate many of the others, whack them as necessary, assume various poses, and juggle more deceptions than you can count - with unfailing success until just before the end.<br /><br />The lead actor here, like many in this channel's movies, is an old hand. I noticed that another film in which he starred was titled "The Perfect Neighbor."<br /><br />Finally, the vengeful "perfect wife" in this flick dispatches those in her path with more expertise and ease than the most experienced and competent "button man" in Don Corleone's family could muster. And I couldn't help but imagine that Jack Nocholson's Melvin Udall character fro "As Good As It Gets," with his massive OCD affliction, could provide counsel to the anti-heroine to assist in dealing with he obsession which was the basis of this opus. | negative |
Sorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like "Stormriders" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like "XENA" or "Hercules" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!<br /><br />My ASIAN-Tips: "MUSA - THE WARRIOR", "STORMRIDERS", "SHAOLIN SOCCER", "BATTLE ROYAL", "VERSUS", etc.<br /><br />Sorry for my bad English! | negative |
For a brief moment. The opening scene with Traci Lords and the<br /><br />techno bar is incredible. I'd probably follow her to my ultimate death too! Best vampire movie of all time but with a twist. The fight scenes are awesome. Wesley Snipes displays an athleticism you dont get to see every day. And Stephen Dorff is impressive and very believable as an ambitious new recruit moving himself up the hierarchy by any means necessary. Great flick 9/10. Where's Blade II? | positive |
... It even beats the nasty "raw". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie! | positive |
Set in the 70s, "Seed" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.<br /><br />Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.<br /><br />Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), "Seed" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations ("Alone in the Dark" for one), "Seed" is just utterly horrendous. | negative |
This is one of the best Non-English series I have seen. It weaves interesting single and double episodes of crime-solving together with a personal aspect that you just don't get in CSI. The individual characters all have personal lives that combine well with their day job and occasionally interfere. Additionally the characters all manage to naturally evolve throughout the episodes.<br /><br />The casting is superb and it was taped all over Denmark, giving a good example of the highlights that majestic country has to offer. Unfortunately only 32 episodes were made, however they are top-notch television. Here's hoping they consider making some more episodes of the same caliber. | positive |
"Thieves and Liars" presents us with a very naturalistic depiction of the levels of corruption that affect many Puerto Ricans and force them to make difficult if not impossible choices about their and their loved ones' lives. The cast is excellent, considering that some are non-professional actors; an excellent choice that augments the level of reality in the film. The photography propels the story without intrusion, as it should be in this type of film. The script captures the idiosyncrasies and attitudes of the "Boricuas" in a very deep way. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a documentary! Watching this film you feel as if you've secretly entered the real Puerto Rican society and stand invisibly watching it implode. I loved it! | positive |
***SPOILERS*** When undercover Brooklyn North Det. Eddie Santos, Nestor Serrano,was to meet his drug supplier Tito Zapatti, Larry Romano, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn in a buy and bust operation, with Tito being the one who gets busted, that things went haywire with both Det. Santos and Tito ending up getting shot and killed by each other. During the deadly shootout an innocent bystander six year-old James Bone Jr.,Jaliyl Lynn,was also killed in the cross-fire.<br /><br />With New York City slated to host the 1996 Democratic Presidential Convention that summer that last thing that the city's flamboyant Mayor Pappas, Al Pacino, wanted was a possible riot over young James Bones tragic death by a possible, in was later determined that it was a bullet from Tito's gun that killed young James, member of the New York City Police Department.<br /><br />What was far more shocking then even Bone's death is that his killer Tito Zapatti was given probation by the well respected NY State Judge Walter Stern, Martin Landau. When he should have been put behind bars for 10 to 20 years by being arrested with a kilo of cocaine in the backseat of his car! It soon became evident that the person who got Judge Stern his job, for a $50,000.00 payoff, was non other the Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo, Danny Aiello. It's Anselmo who's involved with Mayor Pappas in a land deal, involving the New York Subway System, that would bring him and his real estate friends tens of millions of dollars over the next two years! It would also indirectly connect Mayor Pappas in the Bone killing by connecting him to Judge Stern, who made it possible for Tito be be free, who's a mutual friend of both him and his Gomba, or Landsman, Frank Anselmo!<br /><br />To keep all this from blowing up the late Det. Santons is framed, by working undercover without the authority from his superiors, in the Bone shooting. In fact those framing Santos go as far and hiding some $40,000.00 in cash in his upstate summer home making it look like he was being paid off by Tito's uncle Mafia boss Paul Zapatti, Anthony Francoisa, for letting his nephew deal drugs with him getting a piece of the action. Which may well explain him, as well as Tito, getting shot by Tito welshing on his paying Santos off!<br /><br />As things turn out it's Mayor Pappas' deputy in City Hall Kevin Calhoun, John Cusack, who ends up messing everything up for his boss by being too honest in finding who was responsible in covering up Tito's criminal record that allowed him to be out on the streets. The facts that Kevin uncovered lead straight to Frank Anselmo, a major political supporter of Mayor Pappas, who as it turned out was connected by the hip to Tito's Mafia chieftain Uncle Paul!<br /><br />A bit over-plotted "City Hall" does show how big city corruption can filter up, as well as down, to everyone in city government without them, like Mayor Pappas, even knowing about it. Mayor Pappas biggest sin was that he was friends with Brooklyn Boss Anselmo who was putting people into jobs, like Judge Stern, who were subjected to being blackmailed from Anselmo's real boss Mafioso Paul Zapatti.<br /><br />***SPOILERS*** It only took a deadly shootout in Williamsburg to set everything into motion not by only Tito, besides Det. Santos and James Bone, being killed but why he was allowed to be out on the street in order to bring the very popular New York City Mayor down. Mayor Pappas was looking forward to much bigger things, like Governor or even President, in his future political pursuits. As it turned out his top deputy Kevin Calhoun in not looking the other way was responsible for his demise. As well as that of the Mayor's good friend Frank Anselmo and the person whom he helped put on the bench, as a state judge, Judge Stern. Who's decision in letting Tito Zapatti off made this whole disaster, which resulted in at least a half dozen murders and one suicide, possible! | positive |
This movie was marketed extremely well. When it was released in '97, during the middle of Master P's fame and success anything and everything with his name on it was selling off the shelves. That's why it's no wonder this underground urban drama sold over 250,000 copies and still goin'.<br /><br />If you are a fan of No Limit back then or even now check it out. It has a few old school phatty videos and don't get me started with the freaky deaky strippers at the bonus Ice Cream Party. So what I got to say to all the people who don't like Master P or No Limit Records don't watch it because it isn't for you and don't bother voting on it because you're only going to deter TRU no limit fans from renting or purchasing this video with your low votes. | positive |
It's amazing what you can do with little money. DEAD SILENT being a low budget movie delivers its promises. <br /><br />Too bad we don't see Rob Lowe more often on the silver screen. Lowe is at its best in this riveting thriller . No wonder he went from DEAD SILENT straight to the TV mega hit The West Wing . <br /><br />DEAD SILENT 8 out of 10 <br /><br />Sputtosi Toronto. | positive |
'I'm working for a sinister corporation doing industrial espionage in the future and I'm starting to get confused about who I really am, sh*#t! I've got a headache and things are going wobbly, oh no here comes another near subliminal fast-cut noisy montage of significant yet cryptic images...'<br /><br />I rented this movie because the few reviews out there have all been favourable. Why? Cypher is a cheap, derivative, dull movie, set in a poorly realised bland futureworld, with wooden leads, and a laughable ending.<br /><br />An eerie sense that something interesting might be about to happen keeps you watching a series of increasingly silly and unconvincing events, before the film makers slap you in the face with an ending that combines the worst of Bond with a Duran Duran video.<br /><br />It's painfully obvious they have eked out the production using Dr Who style improvised special effects in order to include a few good (if a little Babylon 5) CGI set pieces. This sub Fight Club, sub Philip K Dick future noir thriller strives for a much broader scope than its modest budget will allow.<br /><br />Cool blue moodiness served up with po-faced seriousness - disappointingly dumb. This is not intelligent Sci-Fi, this is the plot of a computer game. | negative |
Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through, the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie, 10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207805) | positive |
Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it. | positive |
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. I think that Angelina Jolie is probably one of the most talented actress' today, but a movie like this isn't just worth her time. She deserves better, and so does everyone else in this movie. Talent is just wasted. Sorry, but i don't feel like writing a review for this.<br /><br />I give it NO stars out of *****. | positive |
Mount Godwin-Austin (otherwise known as K2) is the world's second highest mountain, and if the evidence presented in this film is to be believed is the hardest mountain to climb successfully without getting yourself killed. "K2" is basically a buddy flick set in the breathtakingly dangerous world of mountaineering. While the outdoor photography takes in some truly awesome scenery, the characters standing in front of all those glorious landscapes are a crashing bore - and therein lies the fault with the whole film.<br /><br />Cocksure lawyer Taylor Brooks (Michael Biehn) and his quiet married friend Harold Jamieson (Matt Craven) spend their free time rock climbing. During one of their trips, they meet up with another bunch of climbers funded by wealthy mountain enthusiast Philip Claibourne (Raymond J. Barry). Claibourne's team are in training for a forthcoming shot at the infamous K2, a mountain that Taylor and Harold would both love to tackle but could never afford to do so. During their training run, however, two of Claibourne's team get themselves killed in an avalanche. Taylor and Harold put themselves forward as potential replacements. Despite initial reluctance, Claibourne gives them the nod of approval and the pair find themselves joining his team in the Himalayas. Harold's wife Cindy (Julia Nickson-Soul) is distraught that her husband is going to take on such a dangerous climb, especially since he has recently become a father. Tensions in the climbing team mount as Taylor repeatedly clashes with another member of the group, the equally brash and arrogant Dallas Woolf (Luca Bercovici). Meanwhile, Claibourne himself grows increasingly ill as altitude sickness takes its toll on his body. Will the guys reach the peak of K2, or is their quest destined to end in disappointment, or even death?<br /><br />"K2" spends an inordinately long time introducing its somewhat dislikeable characters. Biehn as a foul-mouthed, pushy, adventurous type is especially hard to like, as is Barry as the hard-nosed mountaineering millionaire. But on the other side of the coin, Craven is so dull that it becomes difficult to believe his wife could possibly give a damn about him going off to climb K2 - heck, she'd be better off if he never came back!! Rounding off the main characters is Bercovici, whose characterisation as Dallas Woolf is as campy and over-the-top as every other role he's ever played. The story itself is totally tame and disposable just a straightforward yarn about guys trying to reach the top of a mountain. There's a bit of male bonding thrown in, but the whole subplot about Harold and his wife amounts to nil, and the personality clashes between Taylor and Dallas ring totally false. "K2" scores its few merits solely from the stunning cinematography by Gabriel Berastain during the Himalayan sequences, the scale and awe of the mountains is quite nicely captured. I'm completely with critic Kim Newman on this one, who hilariously stated in Empire magazine: "On this evidence, climbing K2 can't be any harder than sitting through it!" Quite true, Kim, quite true! | negative |
Boy-girl love affair/sequel with songs, only this time she's the punkette and he's the straight arrow. Movie-buffs out there actually like this movie? It has fans? I must say, the mind reels... "Grease 2" is a truly lame enterprise that doesn't even have the courage, moxy or sheer gall to take the memory of its predecessor down in flames (like "Jaws 2" or "Exorcist II"). No, it whimpers along in slow-motion and often just plays dead. It looks and feels cheap, with a large cast lost amidst messy direction and unfocused handling. This was the first time a substantial audience got a glimpse of Michelle Pfeiffer and, although she doesn't embarrass herself, it's a role worth forgetting. A misfire on the lowest of levels. NO STARS from **** | negative |
I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism, being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about him and possibly life itself. | positive |
Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching this.<br /><br />Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz, it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and this killed it for me. That said, he does get the "To be, or not to be" speech right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions at that point in the play.<br /><br />The supporting roles, to me better written and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius.<br /><br />At four and a half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if you're interested but be prepared for a long watch. | positive |
I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ?? <br /><br />I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ?? | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.